Whether media tycoon Ted Turner's recent $1 billion pledge to the United
Nations is altruistic or just a stunt is not yet clear. What is certain,
however, is that he won't be getting his money's worth or saving humanity.

If Mr. Turner had performed the same due diligence as he surely does
on his business investments, he would have found that most UN agencies,
especially the United Nations Children's Education Fund (UNICEF), are deadly
sinkholes. More tragically, he would see that UNICEF's particular political
agenda is actually fueling the raging AIDS epidemic in Africa.

UNICEF enjoys a reputation of being one of the few "decent"
UN organizations. Founded (in the aftermath of World War II) as the international
relief, its mission has been to provide humanitarian aid to children worldwide.
Its image as an effective and apolitical agency is misleading, since it
abandoned its relief role in favor of a gauzy, undefined political mission
many years ago.

This political mission has included UNICEF's twenty-year crusade promoting
breast-feeding of babies over bottle-feeding. UNICEF's crusade is, in part,
medically sound since most experts in the field would agree that breast-feeding
babies is best. This would be especially true in the Third World, where
unsanitary conditions prevail.

Since 1985, however, scientists have known that the HIV virus can be
passed from mother to child through breast milk. Still, UNICEF continues
to urge even HIV-infected mothers to breast-feed their infants, arguing
that the risks are small and are outnumbered by the health benefits of breast
milk.

UNICEF's fatal vision has created a calamity for Africa's children.
There is growing anger in the international medical and public health communities
over what some call UNICEF's "breast-feeding ideology" in the
Third World, the results of which can be seen in infant death tolls. According
to the World AIDS Campaign, "Every day, 1,000 children become infected
with HIV. If the spread of HIV is not contained, AIDS may soon increase
infant mortality by as much as 75%, and under-five mortality by more than
100% in regions most affected by the disease."

In South Africa, these statistics are playing out. Research by Dr. Glenda
Gray at the Baragwanath Hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa suggest that
breast-feeding increased the risk of HIV transfer from mother to child by
28% -- far higher than previous studies. A recent newswire story reported
that at the current weekly AIDS death rate of 500, Zimbabwe is said to be
losing its breast-feeding campaign due to pandemic. The country is projected
to have 600,000 orphans by the year 2000, among them babies needing breast-feeding
substitutes... It is estimated that 25 to 50% of babies who escape HIV infection
at birth are likely to contract it through breast milk." These stories
are repeated across Africa.

What should be done? More importantly, what has UNICEF -- the world's
relief agency for children -- done? Obviously, sanitation education, widespread
HIV testing and access to inexpensive infant bottle formula would be key
to halting the spread of AIDS among children. The New York Times
reported that the government of Thailand, which has had similar AIDS problems,
now offer free supplies to HIV-infected mothers so they can bottle-feed
their babies. Doctors in Thailand hope the program will "reduce the
cases of mother-to-child HIV transmission by 20%."

In the face of mounting public outrage, however, UNICEF, the World Health
Organization and UNAIDS still refuse to change their policy. They recently
cobbled together an "interim statement" which states: "As
a general principle, in all populations, irrespective of HIV infection rates,
breast-feeding should continue to be protected, promoted and supported (emphases
added)." This is chilling.

UNICEF's stance has clearly changed from sound advice to deadly dogma.
Breast-feeding in the First World is usually safe, but that is definitely
not the case in the AIDS-ravaged Third World. To impose this carelesss
attitude on those hapless mothers borders on genocide.

Regardless of Mr. Turner's interest, the U.S. Congress should consider
UNICEF reform. By its own account, UNICEF currently spends twice as much
on "planning, advocacy and program support" than it does on water
sanitation. The estimated $346 million UNICEF spends annually on travel,
consultants, expensive offices and other luxuries could be put to better
use--education, AIDS testing and bottle-feeding supplies.

(Kevin Pritchett, a public policy specialist, is a member of the African-American
leadership group Project 21.)

###

______________

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their
author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.